Rev Saude Publica.
2020;54:47
http://www.rsp.fsp.usp.br/
Correspondence:
Marcelo Fernandes Costa
Departamento de Psicologia
Experimental. Instituto de Psicologia.
Universidade de São Paulo.
05508-030 São Paulo, SP, Brasil
E-mail: costamf@usp.br
Received: Mar 26, 2020
Approved: Mar 31, 2020
How to cite: Costa MF. Health
belief model for coronavirus
infection risk determinants. Rev
Saude Publica. 2020;54:47.
Copyright: This is an open-access
article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium,
provided that the original author
and source are credited.
Original Article
Health belief model for coronavirus
infection risk determinants
Marcelo Fernandes CostaI,II
Departamento de Psicologia Experimental. Instituto de Psicologia. Universidade de São Paulo. São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
I
Núcleo de Neurociências Aplicada. Universidade de São Paulo. São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
II
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To use the advantages of a ratio scale with verbal anchors in order to measure
the risk perception in the novel coronavirus infection, which causes covid-19, in a health belief
model-based questionnaire, as well as its validity and reproducibility.
METHOD: We used the health belief model, which explores four dimensions: perceived
susceptibility (five questions), perceived severity (five questions), perceived benefits (five
questions), and perceived barriers (five questions). Additionally, we included a fifth dimension,
called pro-health motivation (four questions). The questions composed an electronic
questionnaire disseminated by social networks for an one-week period. Answers were
quantitative values of subjective representations, obtained by a psychophysically constructed
scale with verbal anchors ratio (CentiMax®). Mean time for total filling was 12 minutes (standard
deviation = 1.6).
RESULTS: We obtained 277 complete responses to the form. One was excluded because it
belonged to a participant under 18 years old. Reproducibility measures were significant for
22 of the 24 questions in our questionnaire (Cronbach’s α = 0.883). Convergent validity was
attested by Spearman-Brown’s split half reliability coefficient (r = 0.882). Significant differences
among groups were more intense in perceived susceptibility and severity dimensions, and less
in perceived benefits and barriers.
CONCLUSION: Our health belief model-based questionnaire using quantitative measures
enabled the confirmation of popular beliefs about covid-19 infection risks. The advantage in
our approach lays in the possibility of quickly, directly and quantitatively identifying individual
belief profiles for each dimension in the questionnaire, serving as a great ally for communication
processes and public health education.
DESCRIPTORS: Coronavirus Infections, prevention & control. Coronavirus Infections,
psychology. Risk Reduction Behavior. Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice.
http://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2020054002494 1
 Coronavirus contamination risk score Costa MF.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, several viruses have drawn the medical and scientific community attention
for presenting great risk to international public health. Among them are the coronaviruses,
with great international projection due to the severe respiratory syndromes they cause,
with middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome
(SARS) being the best known1.
A recent outbreak of human infection by a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV, now named
SARS-CoV-2) has been reported in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China. Until January 10,
2020, there were 41 reported cases for SARS-CoV-2 infection between December 8, 2019 and
January 2, 20202. Due to the rapid virus spread through different Chinese cities, on February
13, 2020 the Chinese government announced 59,901 patients with a concordant diagnosis
of pneumonia and 1,368 people killed by the novel coronavirus infection. Then the World
Health Organization (WHO) officially named the 2019-nCoV infection coronavirus disease
2019 (covid-19)3,4.
As a result of the easy mobility across countries, covid-19 cases spread to other
countries rapidly and intensely. This has led authorities from several countries to adopt
non-pharmaceutical control measures to avoid transmission, such as social isolation.
Some countries, such as Italy and Spain, have faced difficulties in population adhesion
to the measure. Brazil has adopted similar strategies to control the virus transmission.
Such populational difficulty in adhesion to behavioral controls may likewise occur in
our country.
Therefore, understanding the determinants responsible for people’s resistance to protective
measures against the virus spread is of great importance for the effectiveness of social
isolation-based public policies, avoiding or reducing non-adherence to the proposed
social controls. We expect the health believe model to help finding determinants for
such behavior.
The health belief model is a tool developed to explain patient’s behavior in the face of an
illness or the risk of falling ill5–7. It was developed in the 1950s and considers that positive
factors increase pro-health behaviors while negative factors decrease or inhibit them.7–9
Thus, to adopt a health care behavior and/or avoid risks for diseases, the patient must:
(1) believe to be susceptible to the disease; (2) believe that the disease will negatively impact,
at least moderately, their life; (3) believe that adopting certain behaviors is indeed beneficial
to reduce their susceptibility or, if they already have it, its severity; (4) overlap important
psychological barriers, key for a successful prevention or treatment8,10,11. Among other uses,
this model has been successfully applied to assess diabetes severity12, analyze protective
factors for bulimia6 find determinants for oral health care13 and study different cultures
perception on dementias11.
Therefore, this study aims to use the expanded health belief model to map the profile of our
population in view of the behavioral controls imposed by covid-19 in our country. To increase
the ability to analyze the responses, we have used a psychophysical scaling methodology by
ratio measurement, by a Borg CR® ratio scale with verbal anchorage (centiMax®)14–18. This
methodology showed to be highly efficient regarding ratio measurements acquisition as it
facilitates quantitative responses for anchoring the corresponding verbal descriptors. Our
experiments showed that the use of ratio scales with verbal anchors improves significantly
the sensitivity and quantitative measurement of major depression scores19. Studies
within the literature usually base the belief model on ordinal measurements, obtained
through a Likert-type scale5,20. A considerable innovative advance in our study is the use
of a quantitative ratio scale21–23. Thus, there is a higher amount of information obtained,
enabling the use of quantitative and statistical tools of high predictive power, unlike
ordinal scales, which restrict information to frequency levels with mode and association
non-parametric analyses.

http://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2020054002494 2
 Coronavirus contamination risk score Costa MF.

METHODS

Sample

The collection period was from March 17 to 24, 2020. The collected demographic data consisted
of sex, age, schooling level, type of health system used, annual income, marital status, ethnicity
or race, transportation system used to daily locomotion and chronic diseases.
Answers were obtained using a digital form disseminated in social networks (REDCap),
characterizing a convenience sampling and snowball recruitment method. After explaining
the experiment purpose, age was inquired. If the participant was under 18 years old, page
was automatically redirected to the appreciation for the participation message. If they
were older than 18, they could follow to the page containing the informed consent form.
Once it was accepted, instructions were provided and testing began. Total time spent for
questionnaire completion was 12 minutes (standard deviation [SD] = 1.6). The study follows
the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its revised versions.

Procedures

Participants were consulted about their beliefs and knowledge regarding covid-19
contamination. The questionnaire consisted of 24 questions. Perceived susceptibility,
severity, benefits and barriers contained five questions each, besides four additional
questions regarding behaviors and attitudes aimed at improving general health, which we
call pro-health motivation.
Perceived susceptibility corresponds to knowledge and belief about coronavirus infection
probability (e.g., “based on my overall health, my chance of catching coronavirus disease
is...”). Perceived severity investigates the personal belief regarding individual suffering of
the disease process and intensity of symptoms (e.g., “if I caught coronavirus disease, the
chance of getting too impaired to do my daily activities would be...”). Perceived benefits
concern the effectiveness of the behavioral mechanisms adopted to prevent the infection
(e.g.: if I wear a mask, the chance to catch coronavirus disease by walking in the street
or at work is...”). Perceived barriers approach the difficulties in respecting norms and
instructions for protection and avoidance of coronavirus infection (e.g., “I think the
possibility of using alternative transportation to come and go from my job instead of public
transportation is...”). We expanded the original model by including the item pro-health
motivation, which presents questions adopted for general health improvement (e.g., eating
habits, exercise routine, etc.).
The responses obtained were numerical values of a ratio scale with verbal anchors, derived
from the centiMax scale®14,24 that represents perception (Figure 1). This scale enables a
direct quantitative measure of the participant perception degree on a psychophysical ratio
scale22,25,26. The advantage of this quantitative method with verbal anchors is that qualitative
descriptive anchors help participants to quickly locate the region of numeric scale values,
in Cmax units, that represent their perception. Up from this point, a numerical value is
chosen, always seeking the choice that indicates the most accurate representation.
Participants were instructed to choose the number that best represented the question-
related perception, guided by the descriptors. Values could be integers or even contain
decimals. It was crucial that the numerical information was as accurate as possible in
representing participant’s perception or behavior.

Data Analysis

The Statistica (version 10.2, Statsoft, Tulsa, USA) program was used for statistical analysis.
An asymmetry test was performed to establish the necessary condition for parametric
statistics, i.e. normality. Although centiMax® ratio scale has been successfully used to
study different health conditions such as major depression19, fatigue and shortness of

http://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2020054002494 3
 Coronavirus contamination risk score Costa MF.

Absolute Maximum

120
110
100 Max
95
90 Extremely strong
85
80
75
70 Strong
65
60
55
50 Somewhat strong
45
40
35 Moderate
30
25
Weak
20
15
12 Very weak
10
7 Extremely weak
5
4
2 Minimal

0 Nothing at all

Figure 1. Illustration of the Borg CR® (centiMax®, CR100) ratio scale, in which anchored adjectives
enable a quick access to the numerical region representing its intensity/magnitude perception (Borg
& Borg, 2002; Borg et al., 2010). Scale and instructions can be obtained at www.borgperception.se.
Authorized use.

breath27, physical exertion15 and chest pain28, it has not yet been applied in studies of purely
psychological variables. Therefore, it is important to test some psychometric parameters. For
reliability, we used split-half correlations with Spearman-Brown’s correction, Cronbach’s
α for internal consistency and total items statistics to identify possible variables with low
contribution to the questionnaire. We also calculated the standardized alpha, the reliability
if we used standardized values (transformed into z score) for the items in cronbach’s α
calculation. Repeated measures variance analysis was used to investigate the association
between scale dimensions and sociodemographic characteristics, such as income level,
type of health system and transportation system used to daily locomotion, through
statistics F. Effect size was measured by h². Spearman’s correlation was performed among
scale values and demographic data on age, schooling level and income to attest to our
measure convergence validity. To illustrate the possible added value of proportion data,
belief profiles on coronavirus infection were built.

RESULTS
Our study collected data from 277 participants. The responses of 276, aged between 18
and 76, of both sexes (women = 197) were used. The excluded response was given by an
11-year-old participant. Table 1 shows the summary of the demographic data of the sample.
Table 2 shows the descriptive measures of the sums for the answers of each belief model
dimension. Mean values are similar, ranging between 52.5 (SD = 31.6) for the pro-health
motivation dimension and 26.6 (SD = 23.0) for perceived benefits.

Questionnaire Analysis

We performed an analysis of reproducibility for the questions of each belief model dimension.
Initial values showed a very good cronbach’s α (αC = 0.817) as well as standardized

http://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2020054002494 4
 Coronavirus contamination risk score Costa MF.

Table 1. Demographic data of the sample (N = 276)

Participants’ characteristics Percentage (n)
Age 40.3 (13.6)a
Sex
Men 29% (79)
Women 71% (197)
Ethnicity or race
White 77% (213)
Mixed race 13% (37)
Black 2.3% (7)
Yellow (Asian) 7% (17)
Indigenous 0.7% (2)
Marital status
Single 43% (119)
Married/Common-law marriage 48% (132)
Divorced/widowed 9% (25)
Schooling
Graduate studies 42% (117)
College 33% (91)
Some College 18% (49)
Secondary education 5% (14)
Some secondary education 0.5% (1)
Some / primary education 1.5% (4)
No formal education 0
Monthly household income
Over 10,001,00 28% (76)
Between R$ 5,001.00 and R$ 10,000.00 31% (85)
Between R$ 3,001.00 and R$ 5,000.00 21% (59)
Between R$ 1,001.00 and R$ 3,000.00 19% (52)
Less than 1,000.00 1% (3)
Locomotion transportation
Public transportation 37% (101)
Private vehicles (taxi, apps and alike) 7% (16)
Personal vehicle 49% (135)
Walking 7% (16)
Chronic diseases
Arterial hypertension 10% (27)
Diabetes mellitus 7% (18)
Immunodeficiency disorders 12% (33)
Respiratory disorders 6% (11)
None 65% (179)
Health system used
Public 32% (88)
Private 68% (187)
a
Mean (standard deviation)

α (αP = 0.821), and a low correlation among the items (r = 0.168), suggesting a great
independence of the questions (Table 3). However, for question 3 of perceived benefits and
question 1 of perceived barriers, item-total correlation values were very low (r = 0.06 and
r = 0.08, respectively), suggesting they interfere negatively in our scale.

http://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2020054002494 5
 Coronavirus contamination risk score Costa MF.

Table 2. Mean, standard deviation and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) of belief model dimensions.
Dimension Mean Standard deviation 95%CI
Perceived susceptibility 39.5 29.8 37.9–41.1
Perceived severity 41.7 33.8 39.9–43.6
Perceived benefits 26.6 23.0 25.1–28.0
Perceived barriers 48.3 40.0 46.2–50.4
Pro-health motivation 52.5 31.6 50.6–54.4

Table 3. Mean, correlation and Cronbach’s α values per item before and after BeP3 and BaP1 removal.
Standard Item-total Standard Item-total
Questions Mean
deviation correlation
α   Mean
deviation correlation
α

Initial form Final form (no BeP3 and BaP1)

SuP1 950.2 301.9 0.53 0.78 871.3 287.9 0.57 0.81
SuP2 957.6 301.3 0.47 0.78 878.7 287.3 0.51 0.81
SuP3 959.8 304.6 0.36 0.79 880.9 291.0 0.39 0.82
SuP4 965.4 304.1 0.52 0.78 886.8 290.9 0.54 0.81
SuP5 954.5 307.8 0.37 0.79 876.0 295.1 0.36 0.82
SeP1 950.5 303.7 0.38 0.79 872.2 290.8 0.39 0.82
SeP2 963.3 302.3 0.54 0.78 884.9 289.5 0.54 0.81
SeP3 951.5 301.3 0.49 0.78 873.2 288.6 0.49 0.81
SeP4 956.1 299.8 0.58 0.78 877.5 287.0 0.59 0.81
SeP5 956.2 308.3 0.37 0.79 877.4 295.2 0.38 0.82
BeP1 985.1 313.8 0.34 0.79 906.3 300.9 0.36 0.82
BeP2 974.5 309.7 0.32 0.79 895.8 296.9 0.33 0.82
BeP3 983.4 316.3 0.06 0.80 - - - -
BeP4 962.6 306.8 0.38 0.79 884.2 294.2 0.37 0.82
BeP5 945.6 304.1 0.42 0.78 867.0 292.2 0.40 0.81
BaP1 933.3 307.7 0.08 0.82 - - - -
BaP2 977.0 313.2 0.11 0.80 897.9 299.4 0.14 0.83
BaP3 948.2 306.0 0.22 0.80 869.6 293.5 0.21 0.83
BaP4 931.6 305.6 0.31 0.79 852.7 292.8 0.31 0.82
BaP5 949.1 311.7 0.15 0.80 870.4 300.1 0.11 0.83
MoS1 928.2 306.5 0.38 0.79 849.2 293.9 0.37 0.82
MoS2 951.3 305.3 0.39 0.79 872.6 292.4 0.40 0.81
MoS3 948.7 304.8 0.43 0.78 870.3 291.9 0.44 0.81
MoS4 948.2 303.9 0.37 0.79 869.8 290.6 0.39 0.82
PSU: perceived susceptibility; PSE: perceived severity; PBE: perceived benefits; PBA: perceived barriers; PHM: pro-health motivation.
Note: The numbers represent the question numbers for each model dimension. Values are in units of the centiMax scale®.

After the removal of these two questions, our scale showed a better cronbach’s α than the
previous one (αC = 0.883), exceeding the 0.800 value. This allows to presumpt the high
efficiency of the scale, since it represents 80% of the population expected variability. Likewise,
standardized α presented a slight improvement (αP = 0.834), and the low correlation among
items was maintained (r = 0.179), certifying an excellent internal consistency. Subsequent
analyses were performed without the presence of these two questions.
The scale reproducibility was estimated by Spearman-Brown’s split half coefficient. The
values found suggest a high correlation (r = 0.882), confirming a high convergent validity
for our scale.

http://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2020054002494 6
 Coronavirus contamination risk score Costa MF.

Comparison between Groups

The analysis of variance of the grouped scores of the items of each belief model dimension
showed differences for perceived susceptibility regarding: type of transportation, in which
urban transportation presented higher mean values (44.0) than personal vehicle (36.1) and
walking (30.2) (F = 5.21; p = 0.003; h² = 0.014); household income, in which participants with
income lower than R$ 1,000.00 presented mean values (16.4) significantly lower than all
other income groups (F = 3.44; p = 0.008; h² = 0.009); and different severe illnesses, in which
participants with autoimmune diseases (83.1) and diseases affecting the immune system

PSU1: routine risk

PSU2: groups exposure

PSU3: place exposure

PSU4: overall health risk

PSU5: presenting severe symptoms A - Sum score 45.7

PSE1: perceived intensity B - Sum score 45.9

PSE2: presenting severe complications

PSE3: impairment of activities of daily living (ADL)

PSE4: shortness of breath intensity

PSE5: population symptoms

PBE1: falling ill while social isolated

PBE2: seeking for help for mild symptoms

PBE3: prevention by influenza antiviral drugs

PBE4: using masks for ADL

PBE5: prevention by hygiene

PBA1: ability to work from home

PBA2: losing the job

PBA3: use of alternative transportation

PBA4: possibility of 14-days social-isolation

PBA5: excessive alarm

PHM1: handwashing minimizes the infection

PHM2: taking vitamin C

PHM3: using masks when in the streets

PHM4: maintain social isolation

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Perceived intensity

PSU: perceived susceptibility; PSE: perceived severity; PBE: perceived benefits; PBA: perceived barriers; PHM: pro-health motivation. The numbers
represent the question numbers for each model dimension. Values are in units of the centiMax scale®.

Figure 2. Representation profile on the belief of coronavirus infection (causing covid-19) for classification in centiMax scale® units (Cmax)
of the intensity of risk perception for two people with very similar sum scores (A = 45.7 and B = 45.9 units; risk chance self-declared as
high). Vertical line at 50 units indicates a “high” infection risk perception on the scale (see Figure 1).

http://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2020054002494 7
 Coronavirus contamination risk score Costa MF.

(42.8) presented higher values than other diseases and those without severe illness (F = 3.13;
p = 0.008; h² = 0.022).
For perceived severity, schooling level showed a significant difference (F = 2.79; p = 0.016;
h² = 0.012), in which participants with complete secondary education (47.9) and incomplete
(72.3) presented higher values than those with higher schooling level. Within the group with
severe illness, participants with systemic arterial hypertension (47.9) and diseases affecting
the immune system (47.8) reported higher values, whereas those with autoimmune diseases
had lower values (22.5) than other groups (F = 10.79; p < 0.001; h² = 0.022).
Perceived benefits dimension was significant for different participants regarding the health
system used (F = 4.32; p = 0.037; h² = 0.007), as participants who used private health systems
(21.5) presented higher values than those who used the public system (18.2).
Perceived barriers were the last dimension to present significant differences among
participants (F = 3.79; p = 0.004; h² = 0.014), in which public transportation users presented
lower values than others groups. Significant differences regarding participants’ sex were
not found, nor were significant correlations between age and scale responses.

Individual Profile

CentiMax scale® enables a directly and quickly graphical analysis of each participant.
Figure 2 shows the profile of two participants who present the sum values of the scale
items practically equal (participant A – 45.9; participant B – 45.7). However, different
beliefs regarding covid-19 can be clearly identified. The vertical line in the value of
50 scale units represents the high perception of the item in question. From an application
perspective, Figure 2 shows how our questionnaire associated with ratio scale use
provides a quantitative and refined gradation, enabling the participant to express their
respective perceptions and intensities with a higher level of detail when compared with
other ordinal or nominal scales.

DISCUSSION
Our study successfully fulfills our objective of quantitatively mapping risk behaviors
perception in view of the coronavirus infection risk through the use of the health
belief model associated with a verbal anchors psychophysical scale, enabling a detailed
representation of individual perceptions. This approach has proved to be very efficient, by
identifying in participants with the same value of risk perception very different profiles
within the variables.
The results identified that some factors are significantly important to understand risk
perception. The type of transportation used to get around on a daily basis significantly
affects risk perception. Public transportation users perceive a greater contamination
susceptibility than personal vehicle users and those who do their activities by foot. The same
greater susceptibility perception was found in people with very low income and individuals
with autoimmune diseases and diseases that affect the immune system (allergies and
rheumatism, for example).
These findings are important sources of information for adopting public policies that
seek the widest possible scope. The perception that using public transportation results
in a higher covid-19 contraction risk than private and personal transportation is positive.
However, the use of collective private vehicles, such as transportation apps, presented a
great variability and, thus, did not differ from any of the groups. Therefore, we understand
this is an interesting target audience to provide more information regarding contagion
risks. Low income was also an important factor and should be seen in a complex way,
as it is associated with reduced information quantity and quality, housing conditions that
favor contamination and difficulty in interrupting daily activities due to economic reasons.

http://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2020054002494 8
 Coronavirus contamination risk score Costa MF.

A fact that drew our attention was that people with diseases associated with a higher
covid-19 contraction risk, such as diabetes mellitus and systemic arterial hypertension,1,3
do not present a significant different susceptibility perception to contamination risk in
comparison with the group of people without self-reported chronic diseases. A possible
explanation is that these patients are mostly asymptomatic and remain with a stable and
clinically controlled disease, behaving as individuals without chronic diseases. Such result
allows us to develop information dissemination policies emphasizing or even particularly
targeting this risk group.
Regarding intensity of symptoms and characteristics of disease progression, participants
with the lower schooling levels in our sample (some and secondary education) showed
greater concern with possible symptoms, because their perceived severity representations
were higher than in other schooling levels. The perception of greater symptom severity
may lead these group to seek health services earlier. This problem is currently at stake due
to the risk of unnecessary covid-19 exposure, as well as other serious diseases, by visiting
health institution without real need.
Another curious result for severity perception was obtained regarding chronic diseases.
Participants with systemic arterial hypertension and diseases affecting the immune system
registered higher susceptibility than other groups. However, participants with autoimmune
diseases reported significantly lower values than others, suggesting that precautions
taken for the treatment and care of their chronic diseases are being positively perceived
as protective factors to the exposure. The type of health system used had an impact on
benefits perception regarding the access and treatment in case of covid-19. Public system
users were less benefited in comparison with participants who use private health systems.
Results obtained through individual profiles enable highly informative and direct
quantitative analyses. For example, if we look at question 1 of the health motivation item in
Figure 2, we notice that participant A believes 30 units that the behavior of washing their
hands prevents the infection by the virus. Participant B believes 120 units that this behavior
is beneficial. For being a ratio scale, we can directly state that participant B believes four
times more than participant A in the effectiveness of washing hands as a healthy behavior
that should be encouraged or increased. When comparing question 2 of the perceived severity
item, participant A believes twice as much in the chance of presenting severe symptoms
and complications as participant B. If a Likert-type scale of 5 points were used, in the first
case, the result would have been too high (or value 5, if a numerical score) for participant
B and low (value 2) for participant A. In the second case, participant A would present a
moderate result (or value 3) and participant B a low result (value 2). In this example, there
is a clear difference between the use of a ratio scale and an ordinal scale, whose sensitivity
and resolution impair the actual identification of participants’ representations.
It is also significantly important to discuss the methodology used in this study. The health
belief model was developed over 60 years ago8,9 and is applied in several areas of health – such
as ophthalmologist education29, study of behavioral aspects in eating behavior psychiatry6,
use and abuse of illicit injectable drugs30, clinics for diabetes mellitus and endocrine12,
among others. However, the customary use of this model includes open or semi-structured
questionnaires, using Likert-type scales to perform psychological dimension measurements.
Our study is a clear advance in the use of this model, as it applies a ratio scale with verbal
anchors, allowing ratio measures and, therefore, presenting a high-potential information
detailing in a quantitative manner. This methodology is noteworthy because even a good
questionnaire may have its information gathering potential greatly impaired if an inadequate
or low information capacity metric is used. S.S. Stevens’ work on psychological measurement
and psychophysical scaling21,23 expanded our understandings on metric possibilities applied
into the psychological universe. Likert-type scales are ordinal and, hence, positional.
Their descriptors solely indicate orders and are unable to designate the distance among
them. Therefore, ordinal scales use nonparametric statistical measurement such as mode,
frequency, association and categorical correlation. Estimating medians on Likert-type

http://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2020054002494 9
 Coronavirus contamination risk score Costa MF.

scales, although the order is numerically represented, is a fundamental measurement error.

On the other hand, measurements within ratio universes, for presenting an absolute origin
of mathematical continuums, enable higher-order statistics. Our study, therefore, presents
a high information quality and objective metric.
Our group is already experienced in constructing psychophysical measurement and
scaling of interval and ratio orders for studies of various psychological continua, such as
symptoms profile in patients with major depression19, sexual attitudes31 and color concept32.
We encourage the use of these psychophysical scaling models, especially verbal anchors
scales, because they are easy to apply and to understand the task to be performed. In addition,
they are associated with quantitative measurements of high capacity for information,
intervals and ratio. Such factors foster a great potential for more detailed and quantitative
studies in public health, which, like psychology, commonly faces complex characteristics
of human behavior regarding prevention issues as well as health and illness risks.
Our study presents some evident limitations, which may have impacted some of the results.
Our sample presents a thickening in moderate- and high-income populations, which may
affect the sample representativeness. Therefore, subsequent studies should seek to correct
this social heterogeneity within the sample.
In conclusion, our health belief model-based questionnaire associated with a ratio scale
with verbal anchors is an important instrument to understand the population perception on
coronavirus infection risks in a quantitative manner, much more detailed and informative
than the commonly applied questionnaires models and psychological metrics, such as
Likert-type ordinal scales. The graphical analysis grants a quick access to the individual
profile, enabling the development of information strategies and more individualized
approaches, which will certainly have a greater impact on communication efficiency.

REFERENCES
1. Al-Hazmi A. Challenges presented by MERS corona virus, and SARS corona virus to global
health. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2016;23(4):507-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2016.02.019
2. Rahman Qureshi UU, Saleem S, Khan A, Afzal MS, Ali MS, Ahmed H. Outbreak of novel Corona
virus (2019-nCoV); implications for travelers to Pakistan [published online ahead of print]. Travel
Med Infect Dis. 2020:101571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101571
3. Wang HJ, Du SH, Yue X, Chen CX. Review and prospect of pathological
features of Corona Virus Disease. Fa Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2020;36(1):16-20.
https://doi.org/10.12116/j.issn.1004-5619.2020.01.004
4. Zhang HW, Yu J, Xu HJ, Lei Y, Pu ZH, 1, Dai WC, et al. Corona Virus international public
health emergencies: implications for radiology management. Acad Radiol. 2020;27(4):463-7
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2020.02.003
5. Darvishpour A, Vajari SM, Noroozi S. Can health belief model predict breast
cancer screening behaviors? Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018;6(5):949-53.
https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2018.183
6. Grodner M. Using the health belief model for bulimia prevention. J Am Coll Health.
1991;40(3):107-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.1991.9936265
7. Grosser LR. Health belief model aids understanding of patient behavior. AORN J.
1982;35(6):1056-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-2092(07)62466-1
8. Rosenstock IM. Historical origins of Health Belief Model. Health Educ Behv. 1974;2(4):328-35.
https://doi.org/10.1177/109019817400200403
9. Maiman LA, Becker MH. Health Belief Model: origins and correlates in psychological theory.
Health Educ Behavor. 1974;2(4):336-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019817400200404
10. Kim HS, Ahn J, No JK. Applying the Health Belief Model to college students’ health behavior.
Nutr Res Pract. 2012;6(6):551-8. https://doi.org/10.4162/nrp.2012.6.6.551
11. Sayegh P, Knight BG. Cross-cultural differences in dementia: the Sociocultural Health Belief
Model. Int Psychogeriatr. 2013;25(4):517-30. jhttps://doi.org/10.1017/S104161021200213x

http://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2020054002494 10
 Coronavirus contamination risk score Costa MF.

12. Hurley AC. The health belief model: evaluation of a diabetes scale. Diabetes Educ.
1990;16(1):44-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/014572179001600111
13. Wilson AR, Brega AG, Thomas JF, Henderson WG, Lind KE, Braun PA, et al. Validity of measures
assessing oral health beliefs of American Indian parents. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities.
2018;5(6):1254-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-018-0472-3
14. Borg E, Love C. A demonstration of the Borg centiMax® Scale (CR100)
for performance evaluation in diving. Nord Psychol. 2017;70(3):228-44.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19012276.2017.1410070
15. Borg G. Psychophysical scaling with applications in physical work and the
perception of exertion. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1990;16 Suppl 1:55-8.
https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.1815
16. Green BG, Dalton P, Cowart B, Shaffer G, Rankin K, Higgins J. Evaluating the ‘Labeled
Magnitude Scale’ for measuring sensations of taste and smell. Chem Senses. 1996;21(3):323-34.
https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/21.3.323
17. Lim J, Wood A, Green BG. Derivation and evaluation of a labeled hedonic scale. Chem Senses.
2009;34(9):739-51. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjp054
18. Schifferstein HNJ. Labeled Magnitude Scales: a critical review. Food Qual Prefer.
2012;26(2):151-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.04.016
19. Borg E, Magalhães A, Costa MF, Mörtberg E. A pilot study comparing The Borg CR Scale®
(centiMax®) and the Beck Depression Inventory for scaling depressive symptoms. Nord Psychol.
2018;71(3):164-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/19012276.2018.1526705
20. Borowski SC, Tambling RB. Applying the Health Belief Model to young individuals’
beliefs and preferences about premarital counseling. Fam J. 2015;23(4):417-26.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480715602221
21. Stevens SS. On the theory of scales of measurement. Science. 1946;103:677-80.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.103.2684.677
22. Stevens SS. The quantification of sensation. Daedalus. 1959;88(4):606-21.
23. Stevens SS, Galanter EH. Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua. J Exp
Psychol. 1957;54(6):377-411. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043680
24. Borg E, Borg G. A comparison of AME and CR100 for scaling perceived exertion. Acta Psychol.
2002;109(2):157-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(01)00055-5
25. Stevens SS. The direct estimation of sensory magnitudes: loudness. Am J Psychol. 1956;69(1):1-25.
26. Stevens SS. Concerning the psychophysical power law. Q J Exp Psychol. 1964;16(4):383-5.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17470216408416398
27. Borg E, Borg G, Larsson K, Letzter M, Sundblad BM. An index for breathlessness and leg fatigue.
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010;20(4):644-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.00985.x
28. Borg G, Holmgren A, Lindblad I. Quantitative- evaluation of chest pain. Acta Med Scand Suppl.
1981;299(S644):43-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0954-6820.1981.tb03117.x
29. Armond JE, Temporini ER. Crenças sobre saúde ocular entre professores do sistema público
de ensino do Município de São Paulo, SP - Brasil*. Rev Saude Publica. 2000;34(1):9-14.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89102000000100003
30. Bonar EE, Rosenberg H. Using the health belief model to predict injecting drug users’
intentions to employ harm reduction strategies. Addict Behav. 2011;36(11):1038-44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.06.010
31. Costa MF, Nomura TN, Ribeiro GDC. Psychophysical Scaling of Sexual Attitude in Brazilian
Adults. Inpact 2014 Int Psychol Appl Conf Trends. 2014:322-4.
32. Costa MF, Gaddi CM. Color Name Distances Scaled by Thurstone’s Ranking Order
Psychophysical Method. J Vis. 2016;16(12):824. https://doi.org/10.1167/16.12.824

Funding: FAPESP Projeto Temático (2014/26818-2)

Authors’ contributions: The author MFC contributed substantially in the design and planning of the study,
data collection, analysis and interpretation of data; prepare or revise the manuscript; approve the final version
to be published; and take public responsibility for the content of the article.
Conflict of interest: The author declare no conflict of interest.

http://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2020054002494 11